I think alliteration, onomonapia assonance and consonance could work together since they are all sounds, but I dunno what to call it.

I would call it phonetic devices or just simply call it phonetics.

Enjabment, syntax and rhythm all have to do with the flow of the poem either structurally or with words, so maybe they could have their own category or go into flow? Or the first two could go into technical and rhythm could be flow?

Should we have a category that merges flow and structure together? Like, flow/structure since flow is a small part of structure. Enjambment and syntax could be technical, but I think it fits into the flow/structure category better than the broader technical category.

I think tone could go in subject.

I agree.

Sybolism and personification can go in descriptions because they're used to describe things.

I also agree on this one.

That just leaves rhyme and repetition to go somewhere...we could make them be poetic devices?

I see rhythm fitting in as a part of structure/flow more than poetic devices. Although, I feel repetition should go into poetic devices.

EDIT2: I see it's RHYME, not rhythm. My bad, I was glancing over some terms. Rhyme will fit under poetic devices as well.

Thoughts, comments, additional terms that should be included?

Not any that I can think of, but where's Meve when you need her? lol.

EDIT: word play, such as associative language, can go into either poetic devices or structure/flow...I personally think it fits in poetic devices better even though it sort of fits into structure/flow, but not as well as it would poetic devices.

We can have flow/structure encompass things such as enjambment, rhythm, syntax and the like. We would still need a place to put grammar so that could be technical aspects or grammar depending on your preference.

Repetition is the only thing left in poetic devices? What about rhyme? Rhyme is in there too, isn't it? These categories only serve as a general guideline and obviously does not cover all the poetic devices out there. Reviewers that see other poetic devices can, of course, include it in this category so if we don't have a poetic devices category then they would have nowhere to put this if they wanted to categorize it. :p

Awesome idea, Narc :D I agree with Frac regarding the chapter requirement, and Mini in saying that there should be a minumum requirement of EF reviews, but more can be settled upon. Regarding this, I think it would be better to have the option of saying "characters and grammar" instead of full depth. I don't know if that's been said before, sorry.

Okay, now two questions:

What are the requirements to accept a trade? Does that author(s) also need to have 7 chapters? Could they play for someone else?

Also, if we're going to label it as a review game, would it be easier to give it an RG format? Granted, depth has a lot of room for fault, but I think AAT and BN have more. The issues I can see with RG format is that with so many chapters on being used, Rule 10 would be a nightmare. Also, with AAT format, you can see who you're doing the trade with, unlike RG where you can easily get someone who tries to cheat you out of reviews.

Should we have a category that merges flow and structure together? Like, flow/structure since flow is a small part of structure. Enjambment and syntax could be technical, but I think it fits into the flow/structure category better than the broader technical category.

I dont see any problem with this either. Its good that similair things are grouped together. makes it easier to examinate :P

Sybolism and personification can go in descriptions because they're used to describe things.

Makes sense too! =D

These I am not so sure about:

I think tone could go in subject

That just leaves rhyme and repetition to go somewhere...we could make them be poetic devices?

But I cant think of any better myself..all of these terms is like an unfamiliar language to me. So you do whats best regarding these since I cant judge. And I very happily agree with the others mentioned in this post.

@RG: Extensive

What are the requirements to accept a trade? Does that author(s) also need to have 7 chapters? Could they play for someone else?

I think we should use parallels of what our other review threads have. So, requirements to accept a trade would be the requirements to make a trade. At least 7 chapters, no hanging debts in air (I think we agreed on this though I am not sure...)

And you can always play for someone else on RG, I think. That's a way of spreading the love after all :p

Also, if we're going to label it as a review game, would it be easier to give it an RG format?

It is labeled review game because it deals with trading, not because the system is the same. Freebie is not a review game because you do not get reviews when you give, and RM is not review game because you do not get as many as you give. They are uneven. The RGs are even trades however. But we could change the name if this is a problem.

Name could be, ie,

Reviews: Extensive

Extensive Review Trade

etc

If we use RG format, it would be just like MC right? Only with more chapters? The gist behind Narc's idea was that two authors do each other instead of paying it forward like the normal RGs. To do such a thing, AAT format is better. BUT AAT format, as we all have seen, is just not working that smoothly! We need to up it if that type of format is going to be done when trading so many reviews. We dont really have room for such flaws then.

Granted, the flaw is that its hte people that dont bother reading, but the people are still playing, so SOMETHING needs to be done.

II. make a post first saying you are reviewing, and dont edit until you are done (edit meaning edit in what story you want)

III. make a post saying you are reviewing (and say what piece you want reviewed) and then you have a certain time frame to do them. You can get reviews as soon as you post

IV. make a post saying you are reviewing (and say what piece you want reviewed) and then you have a certain time frame to do them. You can only get reviews after all reviews are done within the alloted time

I like having Alliteration, Assonance, Consonance, and Onomatopoeia all under one category, but phonetics doesn't feel like the "right" word. Word Play fits better, I think, and Repetition would also be able to be included.

Symbol and Personification would go under Description/Imagery.

Enjambment, Syntax, and Rhyme Scheme could go under a category called Structure. Stanzas would also be a part of this category, as would Punctuation.

Tone and Subject should be separate categories, I feel, because they both encompass very different criteria.

Rhythm could be a separate category, or it could go under Flow. In any case, I feel it should not be in the same category as Rhyme Scheme since not all poems have a clear pattern of rhyme/rhythm or have both (and who can say no to a spare obvious category :P). I wouldn't argue with Rhyme Scheme having its own separate category, though, since it is such a distinct feature of a lot of poems.

That would be a good idea but the thing is that I don't think it should be made like AAT. If it was then people would feel that it's just a hassle because of all the new rules that would have to be followed. Also, I don't think that format is really attractive. People want to get reviews as fast as possible and if it was just like AAT then it would take forever. Instead, I think it should be made as just another review thread. It could be like:

And to adress the issue of whether it should be an Easy-Fix or Depth review then there should just be two different threads for each. In the one for depth, instead of having 4 possible categories to review upon, it would be whatever the author asked for but with a minimum of 8 sentences.

-I think stanza, format and punctuation are different then syntax, enjambment and rhyme scheme. Someone could definitely comment on the stanzas and the syntax and they are really entirely different things. Maybe we could have Structure/Grammar as the first three and technical aspects for the others?

Tone - The poet/persona's attitude toward the subject, or the overall mood of the poem.

-Here's my issue. Tone is in stories too, but there it doesn't have it's own category so it feels kinda unfair to do that here. Plus, I think tone often intertwines with the subject matter since it is how they present the subject in a way.

Subject - Kept as is.

-I still think adding tone here is good.

Rhythm - Was there a definite rhythm? Was it jarring, or was it smooth? Did it enhance the poem, or did it detract from it?

II. make a post first saying you are reviewing, and dont edit until you are done (edit meaning edit in what story you want)

III. make a post saying you are reviewing (and say what piece you want reviewed) and then you have a certain time frame to do them. You can get reviews as soon as you post

IV. make a post saying you are reviewing (and say what piece you want reviewed) and then you have a certain time frame to do them. You can only get reviews after all reviews are done within the alloted time

V. no changes, this is ** me off, frac!

Votes so far:

Nr 1+2 combo: 1 vote (radio)

Nr 1:

Nr 2: 3 (Narc, Kylie, Bubbles)

Nr 3:

Nr 4:

Nr 5: 1 (mini)

Total voters: 5

Undecided: Frac

KEEP THE VOTES COMING!

@mini - Poem Depth

Just to be clear, whenever you feel like you guys have compiled a list that makes sense no need to ask me for an opinion. I will agree with you guys either way, so just go for it. Dont forget to news it though :p

I think stanza, format and punctuation are different then syntax, enjambment and rhyme scheme. Someone could definitely comment on the stanzas and the syntax and they are really entirely different things. Maybe we could have Structure/Grammar as the first three and technical aspects for the others?

The way I see it, Syntax is essentially the same as grammar, only less strict. Same with Punctuation. We could have a separate category for Grammar, but since, in poetry, grammar is so closely tied to poem structure, I felt it was better under Structure. I'm fine either way, though.

Enjambment is inherently structural as it is the specific point at which the lines are ended; sort of like a mini-stanza within a stanza is how I consider it.

As I mentioned earlier, Rhyme Scheme could become its own separate category due to its prominence, but I consider rhyme scheme to be an integral part of a poem's structure as it really works to unify the piece as a whole. Either way is fine by me, though.

So, if we divide them up, Structure would then comprise of Syntax, Punctuation, and Enjambment. Grammar would me made up of Syntax and Punctuation. Rhyme Scheme would either fall under Structure or become its own category.

Here's my issue. Tone is in stories too, but there it doesn't have it's own category so it feels kinda unfair to do that here. Plus, I think tone often intertwines with the subject matter since it is how they present the subject in a way.

The way I see it, Subject focuses on The What. Tone focuses on The How. They could be merged, but I think they are better separate.

That would be a good idea but the thing is that I don't think it should be made like AAT. If it was then people would feel that it's just a hassle because of all the new rules that would have to be followed. Also, I don't think that format is really attractive. People want to get reviews as fast as possible and if it was just like AAT then it would take forever. Instead, I think it should be made as just another review thread. It could be like: Person 1: Can someone please review "BlahBlah" for grammar and spelling mistakes. Person 2: I reviewed "BlahBlah". Can someone review "Blah" for plot structure.

That would kind of take away from the whole point (or at least my original point) in the idea of it. With easy fix and depth, you're still going to end up with reviews that just aren't helpful because they don't focus on what you necessarily need, or are (occasionally) just enough of something to meet the review requirement. Which, when doing one or a couple chapters, isn't that big a deal. But with something as big and long an undertaking as someone's whole story, it makes more sense to do it like a trade, where you have a say in who you end up getting reviewed by and what sort of reviews you want. And the other major concern is that if someone were to play and mess up the reviews (which happens a -lot- in the regular RGs) then a major amount of time may have been wasted.

I think one thing that might make this go better than AAT is that with something like this, you're probably going to get people who have played the RG more than a couple times (I would hazard to guess). Probably only after playing MC and not getting their entire story reviewed.

Hmm, well I see what you mean. It's true that a lot of the reviews would probably get messed up and there would be some complications. It's a good idea overall and I'd love it to become a forum. The only thing is the whole waiting game. Waiting for someone to get someone else to review their story. It sort of seems like a speed bump in the whole process. I don't know how but if anyone has an idea of something that could speed up the process then that would be really helpful.

What if anyone could put up a request at any time? And then once they reach an agreement with someone (or whenever they don't want to do it anymore), they edit their post to close it? I mean, the nice thing about Extensive (as compared to AAT) is that what you get in return will be pretty similar to what you give. So it's likely that if someone wants to get reviewed, they may already find someone waiting.

Either someone's request is up, in which you can respond, like in Multi-chap, you respond to last person (since why would it not be closed if agreement was already reached?) or there is no request, wherein you can make your own offer.

That would kind of take away from the whole point (or at least my original point) in the idea of it. With easy fix and depth, you're still going to end up with reviews that just aren't helpful because they don't focus on what you necessarily need, or are (occasionally) just enough of something to meet the review requirement

I dont get this either.

What makes RG Extensive, if carried out in normal RG fashion, unable to employ the same review requirements you are trying to implement for this one?

I think Narc;s point is if you tell them to do an EF review they can do it on anything and he may want the review to focus on plot. For EF I think you can just specify please give me an EF review about the plot. For Depth it would be harder since you have to comment on four areas unless we make a custom depth so like you say I want a depth review on my plot and characters. The reviewer would still need to do 8 sentences but only cover those two areas?

I think Narc's point is this. If you do a depth review you must comment on 4 areas. Let's say the only thing I'm concerned with is plot. I don't want to hear about any of the other areas. So they could get 8 sentences on just that area if they asked to so that it's still depth, but jsut on one topic because that's what the author wants.